Yeah, "odd" ideas.. Like freedom. A new constitution would be a dangerous thing for this country, in my opinion. Who would be the ones to write it? Those who can use the writing of it to increase their own financial gain. Our government can no longer be trusted with tasks like this.

I don't think we'd see a true revolution in terms of equality for all, or for a wider range of freedom to pursue happiness. Let's face it, the majority of our country, both politicians and citizens, believe this is a Christian country.

How can we rewrite the constitution from that thinking? There would be mayhem over equal marriage laws, gun owners rights, and citizens privacy (such as the "Patriot Act).

How do we arbitrarily erase what laws exists and decide what to replace them with? The rewriting ofnthem constitution would give government too much power. The constitution could be changed every few years, or with every new president if we are not careful.

Why are amendments no longer enough?

Also, I'd like to hear from him exactly what, in the Bill of Rights at least, he opposes? Should we start using the rack on prisoners again? Or perhaps bring back slavery? Hmmm.. Maybe hold a public witch burning and rid ourselves of all these pesky women. In fact, depending on who rewrites it, we may not even have an article to debate over!

HELL NO!!
We simply need to follow the Constitution we have.

1. The basic principles and ideas of the existing U. S. Constitution are timeless.
2. If the existing one is scrapped it would still need most of the same provisions such as freedom of speech, no government religion (or equivalent, in dogma!), right to bear arms, three branches of government, equal rights and protections under the law, etc.
3. Some of the organizational stuff probably could stand a change.
4. It would need overwhelming support from both left and right minded people to prevent a civil war. This is for certain! Anything without full support of the people would be a disaster.
5. It would seem that amendments to the existing U.S. Constitution could accomplish the same thing as a new constitution. It would probably be easier to find sufficient support for amendments than to find sufficient support for an entirely new constitution. Expect a new constiutution if a civil war takes place...be careful what you wish for...

Well, said QED!

Scrap the constitution? What nonsense! (As an aside, we have too many lawyers dabbling in politics, but what else is new?).

Technology changes but human nature does not. There is not a thing wrong with the document and the means to amend it. What happens all too often is some people misread the document and its antecedents for their own ideological argument and to further their own ends. The constitution was written for all citizens! Anyone who studies the background will understand, don't read into it or interpret it for your own ends but for the good of the country. And understand the times that in which it was written.

Really? Odd ideas? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

Perhaps those ideas, as well as the ideas found in the Declaration of Independence (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...) are odd to Mr. Seidman. The US Constitution was drafted to restrict the control of the government, not the people. Any Statist would find the constitution an obstacle they would strive to remove.

It is perfect the way it is. Genius really. It allows for amendments and that should be enough. These kind of liberal ideas are dangerous.

The thing is, these great men who wrote the constitution cared about their country, not their lobbyists and own pockets. One of the most important items is the separation of church and state.

For over 200 years, this document has stood to establish FUNDAMENTAL freedoms. Just because its not easy doesnt mean that the document has to change. The easy thing to do is READ what is there, live by it. So many people have fought for and fought by oath to our Constitution. Leave your hands off it!

I think the constitution works just fine, if anything expand a few rights, you don't need to rewrite the whole thing to do that though. I mean seriously it is 2013, I think it is time to stop saying that gay people marrying will cause the world to end. If your religion tells you it is wrong, then don't do it, and according to your religion they won't go to heaven anyway. Just because the state says it is right doesn't mean that your God has to accept them... so it isn't like you will have to see them in the afterlife anyway.

If anything we need a reboot of the people in our Federal Government, and the federal bureaucracies.

No! Enough said.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson

To be fair, Thomas Jefferson - certainly someone familiar with the origins of the country - did advocate a new 'constitution', or country entirely every 20 years or so:

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

The '20 years' line has been rephrased to mean generation, and judging by the average lifespan of 18th Century man, it's fairly reasonable. That does not mean we should shred the Constitution and start again, but rather use the tools inherent in it to discuss changes or outright re-writing. A formal Constitution Convention would be a step in the right direction, knowing full well that any changes would take consdierable time and effort (and 2/3 vote of the Congress and states) to enact.

The several states have lost much of their self-rule over time; so for starters, I would advocate the revocation of the 17th Amendment; this would allow states to resume the self-governing they've lost. Sadly, it's so unlikely and sitting Senator would vote for this!

New Constitution? Definitely not!
Amend if it needs to be but no scrapping it.